Talk:Kosovo and Serbia economic normalization agreements

Narrative
The article has a big issue: Kosovo and Serbia never signed an agreement with each other. They signed two separate agreements with the Trump administration. The agreements are not in the form of a treaty, so they may lack legal (binding) validity. I'm not sure that the current title is appropriate because there really is no agreement between the two countries and representatives from both states have stated that they never signed an agreement with each other. The Trump administration has presented the two agreements (USA-Kosovo, USA-Serbia) as a bilateral agreement (Kosovo-Serbia), but that didn't happen. The article can discuss the political narrative of the Trump administration, but it must discuss it in the context of what actually transpired in the White House.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As that is the case, perhaps we could use the title “Economic Normalisation Agreements” as the title of the page as that was the heading on the document signed by each party.Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Made a few changes to the text which I hope will now clarify the issue of what was actually signed.


 * It's really confusing. I'm not even sure if a separate article is needed, but I was suggested to merge with the Kosovo–Serbia relations. Certainly, the term “agreement” is not disputed. It doesn't necessarily refer to a formal treaty, but can mean in the context of a deal and consensus. Most of the media used that term. The title is not problematic, it is more important to clarify in more detail what was signed and with whom.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We can add that on the lead as what the event has become known in the media - largely because of the narrative put forward by the Trump administration. The topic is notable. Notability is judged by the coverage of the event, not its actual importance. The actual event does not involve any bilateral agreement, so a change of the title is necessary. how about Kosovo-Serbia economic normalisation agreements? What should be clarified in the title is that there is no single, bilateral, binding agreement or treaty.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Or we could use "Washington Agreements (2020)" as a title to avoid mention of the parties to the agreements in the title. This is similar to the title of the previous Brussels Agreement (2013) between the two parties. This is in keeping with the consensus for agreements on Wikipedia to name agreements after where they are made e.g. Dayton Agreement, Oslo I Accord, New York Agreement, Sun City Agreement, Simla Agreement etc. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea, something like that, the present title is certainly misleading.Selfstudier (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I will move to "Washington Agreements (2020)" if there are no objections. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds logical, but for now, the agreement is not widely known by that name. The title is fine, it can possibly only be added “economic”. The “Kosovo-Serbia (economic) agreement” does not necessarily mean that they have signed each other, but that it refers to Kosovo and Serbia. There is no need to further confuse readers, even with the title. It's important to emphasize that both sides signed independent documents, and that Trump signed a letter of intent or something like that, like Grenell said.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the current title confuses the readers because - largely due to the narrative of the Trump administration - it implies that there was an agreement between Kosovo and Serbia, but in fact there were two separate agreements with the Trump administration which are also different in terms of content. I have no objection, but since WEBDuB disagrees maybe we could try Kosovo-USA-Serbia Agreements (2020) or alternatively  you could start a move discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We could go for something like "Kosovo and Serbia Economic Normalization agreements (2020)" which names the two entities that signed the documents without implying that it is an agreement between the two.Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287405200_The_Serbia-Kosovo_Agreements_An_eu_Success_Story :) Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If one looks at Brussels Agreement (2013) it says "The Brussels Agreement, formally the First Agreement of Principles Governing the Normalisation of Relations, was made between the governments of Serbia and Kosovo on the normalization of their relations. It was negotiated and concluded, although not signed by either party, in Brussels under the auspices of the European Union. Now this is basically a mirror of what has just occurred with US/Washington substituted for the EU/Brussels. Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that, in order to change the name, we should wait to see which name will be often used in the media and literature. Most media, for now, state that there was an agreement: CNN, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, CBS, The New York Times, Deutsche Welle, France24, Yahoo News. Like I said, the title is a less important issue. We should to focus on the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree, the title is an important issue and no "agreement" actually exists. If we do not want to change it, the alternative is a merge.Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The current change of title by is a good one. Also, note how vague the first reports are - the press tries to juggle around the hype that has been generated by the Trump administration.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have tried to use a title which uses the plural word "agreements" in lower case and also names the two entities whose representatives signed documents in the White House that day without trying to imply that they signed agreements with each other. I can't see how a merger with the Serbia-Kosovo relations article would be possible as this was an event which received sufficient press coverage and international reaction to warrant its own article. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN, NYT and AP all currently use "economic normalization" so it seems pretty clear that's the right way to go. This has been on the cards for many years already, despite the hype. It was just a question of when.Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A merge wouldn't work not only because this is an inherently notable event, but also because it stands at 18k, while Kosovo–Serbia relations stands at 37k. A merge might cause WP:UNDUE issues in the latter.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I posted an EU update in the reaction section, note there that they refer to a legally binding agreement sometime in the future.Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As more detailed reports are getting published: : The Trump administration churned out a typical piece of fake news and is asking from the rest of the world to treat it as a "historic event".--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Quote?
This edit added the quote "The two documents that were signed were headed "Economic Normalization" and started with a preamble stating "Serbia [Belgrade] and Kosovo [Pristina] agree to move forward with economic normalization by agreeing to the following" originally without any source. A source that refers to a draft text has now been supplied but as I understand it, the texts were not made public although I might be wrong on that. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-04/trump-says-balkan-rivals-serbia-kosovo-agreed-to-economic-deal) I can only find the exact quote in one source, Balkan Insight, but not until the 7 September, which is after we put in WP so it is possible they are simply parroting us. It sounds dubious because a) why would one write that both agree if both parties are not signatories and b) why would such as thing not be found in any of the mainstream sources? I am marking this as dubious but I think it should probably come out altogether unless we can definitively source that it was in both texts from a reliable mainstream source.Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am going to go ahead and remove this material, we have no source for a statement in WP voice as is given. The nearest thing I can find, apart from the current reference to a "draft" apparently originating from a Kosovo TV station, is statements from Trump or Trump officials talking about an "agreement" in the most general terms.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For info, This twitter post of 4 September appears to show a copy of a paper signed by Hoti and another signed by Trump addressed to Hoti. Twitter is not usually suitable as a source. Notice this has the Belgrade and Pristina in brackets (the source we had did not have those and spoke only of a draft text.Selfstudier (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Lake Gazivode/Ujmani
Rather than edit war, I suggest we go by the traditional WP method ie what do independent reliable sources say.

I have edited to include the way it is phrased in the mentioned feasibility study, which has now been delivered apparently pdf here.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Good Day Selfstudier,

Thank you for trying to help out here. I hope that the POV-Pusher will stop with his/her edits.

Both Names were mentioned in the Agreement. As such, both should be mentioned. I dont see the point of the POV-Pusher to remove the Link for the Lake's Article.

--InNeed95 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My word is not necessarily the final, it's a suggestion based on an apparently independent reliable source. It might be useful to go through newsorg sources (Reuters, WAPO, BBC etc) see how they deal with it. The criteria is a balance of independent reliable sources.Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)